Implementing Quality Management Systems in Small and Medium Construction Companies: A Contribution to a Road Map for Success

This study is based on the direct participation of the author as implementation manager in the company and through interviews and meetings with all key users, as well as consultants and the company’s owner. Table 1 portrays the scope of the survey, identifying the stakeholders interviewed by their quantity and role within the company, as well as during the implementation. The QMS implementation process lasted more than $18\text{months}$ .

Unlike manufacturing industry, for which the ISO 9001:2000 standard was primarily designed, the construction industry carries out its production in ever-changing locations, and its work teams, equipment, fringe conditions and interfaces are always different (Bubshait and Al-Atiq 1999). The built object itself is unique, with a specific dimensioning and design. Never before has another identical object been built, and it is unlikely that it ever will, in the future. In the ideal situation where all the recourses, the concept, and design are identical, at least the soil upon which the object will be built will be different.

The systematic and comprehensive definition of the function records and of the respective function matrix is a structuring task that formalizes in a binding way the function record, its functional ties, the superior functions it reports to, and the minimum and preferred competences to be met in order to execute the function. Formalizing an organization chart is essential for process systematization. However, this task often meets internal resistance, since it unambiguously formalizes a specific authority and responsibility structure. This is seldom consensual and can cause ego and labor/management conflicts (Kuprenas et al. 1996). In order to avoid this problem, consultants often suggest, as a first approach, an organization chart with functions instead of names.

Certifying a QMS implies the introduction of a strict document control process. This is often a reason for resistance by members of the structure. The most important points to clarify are:Introduction of a document control process and maintenance of QMS records, especially nonconformities, preventive and corrective actions, verification/calibration of measurement and monitoring devices (MMDs), as well as keeping management indicators updated, are the major reasons for the widespread opinion that QMSs are complex and that they increase bureaucracy and paperwork in an unnecessary way. In fact, an underachieved implementation of a QMS will most certainly lead to results that confirm this opinion. However, if the opportunity, rather than the difficulty angle is observed, the implementation process is a good occasion to rationalize and simplify the storage and flow of records in the company, while shifting at the same time from paper to computer platforms. A successful implementation can in fact pave way for the reduction of paper and physical archives for all records in the company, QMS related or not.

Besides, the commitment to create and maintain records in a systematic manner brings about a mental shift towards the whole of documentation management: systematic, voluntary, continuous, and reliable instead of sporadic, unreliable, and forced upon. Concerning this subject, it is particularly important that the new tasks are introduced with new methods and tools to accomplish them. This is a sensitive and often decisive issue for the success and sustainability of the implementation.

This issue is tightly connected with the previous one. In fact, many new procedures are created with the implementation of the document control process and with the introduction of records of nonconformities, preventive and corrective actions, and verification/calibration of MMDs.

However, Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement as set forth in the ISO 9001:2000 standard also create a set of procedures and records that have to be considered. Organizations often perceive this set of changes as extra obligations and hindrances to their fundamental mission. This attitude can be avoided if its origins are taken into consideration: production staff is by nature contrary to paperwork. Interviews showed a generalized feeling among production personnel that these tasks are unnecessary and consume time which diverts them from their essential production tasks. They often don’t receive any positive feedback from the records they create and develop the opinion that the documents are either useless or are solely used to limit their autonomy and to monitor their vigilance by others. It is important to create strategies to avoid this mentality, in order to guarantee the motivated collaboration of the production staff.

Identifying the process (or activities) needed for the Quality Management System is an essential part of the Quality Manual. A common mistake is focusing on the administrative and bureaucratic part, instead of focusing on the production process. The norm does in fact require bureaucratic and administrative formalism. This is often the part the certification consultants are more comfortable with, since the administrative process is similar in any implementation they have carried out in the past. However, the aim must be kept in mind: manage the quality of the product/service provided. Thus, special attention must be given to identifying the process needed for the QMS. It must be specific, concrete, technical, and well integrated as a whole. Much more than a document with adequate formalism for securing the certification of the company’s QMS, the Quality Manual must be a useful document for technical reference of the company’s production activity. It must become in its various parts, especially in the identification of processes and activities, a reference manual that provides concrete and quantified information on how to carry out the production in a correct manner, both from the formal perspective of the QMS and from a technical perspective. In particular, it must specify for the measurements that must be done:

This is yet another issue that is generally new to construction companies. Unlike in the services sector, there is no tradition of systematic identification of the needs and satisfaction of clients, and little emphasis on processing, analysising and improving as a result of the information obtained.

Here also it is important to shape the gathering and processing of data in a way that it is perceived by the organization as a positive contribution to its performance, not as a act of censorship or negative exposure of its work.

The layout of the questionnaires, when applicable, and the feedback from the Quality Management received by the structure are particularly important; questionnaires must be objective and clear, and the feedback must be given in an objective, constructive, and, above all, motivating manner. Negative criticism, perceived as unfair by the organization can jeopardize the quality of participation by the staff in this process. Furthermore, inadequate questionnaires compromise the credibility of the data obtained. Thus, when preparing the questionnaires, special attention should be given to the right choice of questions and their weight in the overall evaluation. Since certification consultants work in all kinds of sectors, they are tempted to propose questionnaires that are well tested, but not adequate to the specific business of the company.

Staff assigned to monitoring and management of the QMS has an uneasy, misunderstood job. They are perceived as unproductive, often even a hindrance by the production staff. This image has been created by the assignment of people with insufficient production background to jobs related to quality. In many implementations of QMS, employees recent to the business or to the company have been assigned to quality related jobs. Staff members who have an administrative profile have often been preferred, in order to cope with the increased volume of documentation. Organizations may find themselves being channeled into managing the documentation aspects of the certification process, rather than into achieving the objectives of the QMS itself (Kelada 1996). Some of this staff may tend to see certification as an end in itself, rather than a means of implementing an on-going quality system which seeks the objective of sustainable continuous improvement (Love and Li 2000). This also happened in order to avoid excessive complicity between the quality and production departments, which could lead to an incomplete and inaccurate verification of the procedures to be implemented. The quality staff then became “internal inspectors,” denouncing their production colleagues’ mistakes and shortcomings, or causing unnecessary work that leads to delays in the production progress. Therefore, the staff assigned to quality functions and who interact on a daily basis with the production department should originate from the “field,” thus having earned respect by the production department’s staff. This way, they can do their job in a positive vigilant manner, introducing practical corrections suited to on-the-job learning by the production staff. In this context, the top management representative, as foreseen in the ISO 9001:2000 norm, has an important role to play. As a representative of the top management’s commitment to the QMS, he or she will take the role of the guardian of the system against possible deviations and will guarantee that the complicity and solidarity between the quality and production staff will not be taken more seriously than the duties within the QMS.

The process of implementation always means an extra effort to all in the organization. A well-implemented QMS will impact all sectors in the company. For the head of the company there is often the belief that this process can be achieved without impacting its own functions, “shoulders down.” In small- and medium-sized companies, this is an illusion. These companies are managed by their head with such intimate involvement in details that it becomes impossible to keep the modus operandi of the head of the company unchanged. The head of small- and medium-sized construction companies is typically conservative and intervenes in the company’s structure at all levels. Thus, the head has an important decision to make:Another belief, or hope, in the beginning of the implementation process consists of thinking that this process represents a single time-added effort. This soon proves to be an illusion. The implementation process is, in fact, an effort limited in time. However, the extra tasks it implies must be taken into account. Besides building up new functions and resources related to the quality department, it is necessary to reassess the existing functions that are more impacted by the QMS. In the specific case of the construction industry, those affected are:

A certified QMS is a prestige factor. The company proves vitality, commitment to modernization, awareness of the current concept of quality, and capacity to operate important and positive changes in its structure. This alone is a basis for increased confidence by the customers. Assessment of the customers’ opinions and commitment to continuous improvement brings the costumers and the company closer together. The costumers’ opinions are heard and taken into account.

As portrayed above, the process of implementing a QMS is a significant opportunity to restructure and modernize an organization. It is an external, widely accepted motive to change functions, procedures, and old habitudes in the organization. This effort would otherwise be considered an unnecessary and unjustified extra effort.

It is also an excellent opportunity to introduce new tools and work techniques, thus restructuring the organization not only to achieve the certification but also to make it more effective and rational. Just like when implementing Total Quality Management, when an organization implements an ISO 9001-compliant QMS, it is often dealing with replacing, not merely modifying, its culture (Demski 1993).

The certification of an ISO 9001:2000-compliant QMS is demanding in that it involves:This level of demand has been criticized for increasing the process bureaucracy. However, it brings about the adjustment of the structure to a new, more structured modus operandi. In some companies this means being exposed for the first time to written procedures and to the creation of records on a continuous, everyday basis.

It also demands from production personnel at all levels, recorded intermediate verifications of their work, enhancing self-control and responsibility on a wider range of functions. This represents an opportunity to change mentalities and work procedures, focusing of self-control, responsibility, measurement, and monitoring.

It is particularly important to avoid seeing QMS as one more obligation that can be fulfilled in a compressed manner right before specific milestones, maintaining the modus operandi unchanged during most of the year. The most important of these milestones will surely be the yearly audit by the certification body. In such a context, this audit will be preceded by a strenuous, but time-limited effort. This is a tempting deviation from the spirit of the norm and should be fought against.

The implementation process leads to clarifying and recording what is expected from each function in the organization and the specific skills required to carry out that function. It also requires a clear, unambiguous definition of each employee’s responsibilities. This requires a reassessment process that enables conclusions about ambiguous border areas. Another important aspect is the clear statement of the hierarchical chain, which outlines each employee’s responsibilities and scope of authority.

Rather than guaranteeing a high level of production/services quality in the immediate post-certification phase, implementing a QMS guarantees a quality standard with lower dispersion. It also commits the organization to continuous improvement, thus gradually raising this standard.

The implementation of a QMS implies planning, defining, verifying, and updating processes and procedures. This is defined in the ISO 9001:2000 norm as the “plan-do-check-act cycle.” It encourages a change of mentalities from a reactive to a proactive attitude. Planning and prevention gain ground to replace the daily solving of unexpected urgent problems.